Palin says she’s fine with Limbaugh’s use of the ‘r-word.’
Palin says she’s fine with Limbaugh’s use of the ‘r-word.’
This morning on Fox News, host Chris Wallace asked Sarah Palin about her public call for White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to resign after reports surfaced that he called a group of liberal activists “f—ing retarded.” Palin reiterated her call for Emanuel to “step down” and explained that while she’s not “politically correct” or “one to be a word police,” she was committed to “reaching out and to helping the special needs community.” But when Wallace asked Palin about Rush Limbaugh’s endorsement of the language, Palin said she was fine with Limbaugh’s satirical comments. “I didn’t hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with ‘f-ing retards,’” she said. “There is a big difference there”:
PALIN: I agree with Rush Limbaugh. He was using satire to politically correct —
WALLACE: He used the “r” word.
PALIN: He used satire. Name-calling by anyone, I teach this to my children and you teach it to your children and grandchildren, too. Name calling by anyone is just unnecessary. It just wastes time. Let’s speak to the issues and — [...]
PALIN: I didn’t hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with ‘f-ing retards’ and we did know that Rahm Emanuel has been reported, did say that. there is a big difference there. Again, name-calling, using language that is insensitive, by anyone, male, female, Republican, Democrat, is unnecessary. It’s inappropriate. Let’s all just grow up.
Watch it:
Emanuel, who has apologized for the remark to Special Olympics CEO Tim Shriver, now plans to host “a delegation of advocates, including two people with mental disabilities, at the White House” as part of his effort to make amends. Limbaugh, meanwhile, gleefully used a derivative of the word “retard” at least forty times, saying that “there’s going to be a retard summit at the White House. Much like the beer summit between Obama and Gates and that cop in Cambridge.”
- Comments
- 853
Podesta Calls On McConnell To Apologize For Denigrating FBI Interrogation Of Abdulmuttalab
Podesta Calls On McConnell To Apologize For Denigrating FBI Interrogation Of Abdulmuttalab
Last week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) besmirched the reputation of FBI agents who interrogated terrorist Umar Farouq Abdulmutallab after he was arrested. “He was given a 50 minute interrogation, probably Larry King has interrogated people longer and better than that,” McConnell said on Fox News.
This morning on ABC’s This Week, Center for American Progress Action Fund President and CEO John Podesta noted that intelligence agents have skillfully secured the cooperation of Abdulmuttalab’s family. Because his family was assured that Abdulmuttalab was not being tortured, they worked with the FBI to convince the terrorist to talk. Abdulmuttalab then provided intelligence, some of which was apparently used to capture terrorists in Malaysia.
“I think you can huff and puff as former Governor Palin likes to do, but the proof’s in the pudding — he’s talking, they’ve gotten actionable intelligence, they’re acting on it,” Podesta said. When conservative pundit Peggy Noonan complained that the administration shouldn’t have told the public that Abdulmuttalab was cooperating, Podesta suggested disclosure may not have been necessary if political leaders like McConnell weren’t criticizing intelligence agents:
PODESTA: Maybe if all those politicians stopped attacking the FBI – Mitch McConnell likened the FBI to a Larry King interview – maybe if they stopped with the politics –
RUTH MARCUS: Now that’s cruel.
PODESTA: Well, no, I think he owes the FBI an apology. But if they’d stop with the politics, maybe they wouldn’t have to respond.
Watch it:
Later, Podesta defended the FBI: “I tend to listen to the professionals, and other people tend to listen to Governor Palin.”
He also referenced Sen. Richard Shelby’s (R-AL) “blanket hold” on Obama’s 70 executive nominees — two of whom include the head of the State Department intelligence official and the Homeland Security intelligence official. “What gives here?” Podesta asked. “Are these people serious or are they just playing politics?
JOHN BRENNAN: On Christmas night, I called a number of-- senior members of Congress. I spoke to Senators McConnell and Bond. I spoke to Representative Boehner and Hoekstra. I explained to them that he was in F.B.I. custody. That Mr. Abdulmutallab was in fact talking. That he was cooperating at that point. They knew that in F.B.I. custody means that there's a process then you follow as far as mirandizing and presenting him in front of the magistrate. None of those individuals raised any concerns with me, at that point. They didn't say, "Is he going into military custody? Is he going to be mirandized?" They were very appreciative of the information. We told them we'd keep them informed. And that's what we did. So, there's been-- quite a bit of an outcry after the fact. Where again, I'm just very concerned on behalf of the counterterrorism professionals throughout our government that politicians continue to make this a political football. And are using it for whatever political or partisan purposes.
Palin: Obama could win reelection if he ‘played the war card’ and declared ‘war on Iran.’
Palin: Obama could win reelection if he ‘played the war card’ and declared ‘war on Iran.’
This morning on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace conducted a 25-minute interview with Sarah Palin, a paid contributor to Fox News. Palin told Wallace that she doesn’t think President Obama will win reelection in 2012 if he “continues on the path he has America on.” However, Palin indicated that his chances of winning would dramatically change if Obama simply declared war on Iran:
WALLACE: How hard do you think President Obama would be to defeat in 2012?
PALIN: It depends on a few things, say he played — I got this from Buchanan — say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decide to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel–which I would like him to do. That changes the dynamics of what we can assume will happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, Obama would not be elected.
WALLACE: You’re not suggesting that Obama would cynically play the war card?
PALIN: I’m not suggesting that, I’m saying if he did, things would dramatically change if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and secure our allies. I think people would shift their thinking a bit.
Watch it:
Palin appears to be fine-tuning her position on Iran. Late last year, Palin mistook Iraq for Iran when she suggested that the U.S. has to crack down on Iraq to prevent nuclear war in Iran. In 2008, Palin appeared to claim that the U.S. needs to “win” the non-existent war with Iran. During her interview with Wallace, Palin also confirmed that she would consider running for President in 2012 and that it would be “absurd” not to.
Fox News Military Analyst Endorses DADT Repeal, Criticizes McCain For Flip-Flopping
Fox News Military Analyst Endorses DADT Repeal, Criticizes McCain For Flip-Flopping
This morning, Fox & Friends Weekend hosted Col. David Hunt, a Fox News military analyst, to discuss whether to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
According to his bio on the Fox News website, Hunt is a retired colonel with “over 29 years of military experience including extensive operational experience in special operations, counter terrorism and intelligence operations.” Hunt generally adheres to the conservative line on national security matters. For instance, he was an advocate for attacking Iraq. And instead of encouraging dialogue with Iran and Syria, Hunt said in 2006, “I think we can talk to them when we line them up and kill them.”
This morning, however, Hunt sided with progressives who are advocating repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Hunt called the discriminatory law “an abject failure” because “we’ve lost somewhere between 11 and 14,000 soldiers.” He continued:
Being brave in the battlefield has nothing to do with how you go to the bathroom or how you have sex. … If you volunteer to serve this great country, we should welcome you, not push you away because of some arcane attitude about sex.
Even Fox host Clayton Morris agreed. “Yeah, it’s like a civil rights issue. I find it absolutely absurd,” Morris said. Then Morris and Hunt took a swipe at Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who claims to heed the views of military leaders (except those with whom he disagrees):
MORRIS: On the campaign trail, then-Sen. John McCain said, look, when I hear from the military brass that they want to end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, I’ll get right in line with them. That’s what happened — we heard from Admiral Mullen, we heard from Defense Secretary Gates. … Why is John McCain flip-flopping here?
HUNT: It’s just too damn convenient for McCain to be doing this. … He’s just wrong on this. We’re in a war. We’ve got guys deployed for 8 years in Afghanistan, almost 7 years in Iraq. And somebody says, I want to serve this country. And McCain wants to say, if you’re homosexual, you can’t serve. It’s wrong. We need these kind of people. We need all of them.
Hunt said that the repeal of DADT won’t be “easily accepted” by the military because “it’s a conservative organization,” but it’s still the right thing to do in the long-run. Watch it:
Over the past few days, Fox has given ample airtime to those who defend DADT. Bill Kristol called it a “success.” Ollie North derided repeal as a harmful “social experiment.” Bill O’Reilly opposed repeal because “it’s a morale issue.”
A review of Fox News shows over the past month indicates that Hunt – generally, a regular contributor on Fox News – had not been called upon prior to this morning to offer his views on the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Will Hunt be invited on other Fox News shows to discuss his views?
Did Palin write the answers to Tea Party Convention questions on her hand?
Did Palin write the answers to Tea Party Convention questions on her hand?
Tonight, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin spoke to the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, TN, an event that was ditched by other high-profile Republicans who disliked its for-profit model. After her speech, organizer Judson Phillips asked Palin several questions. One of them was about what needs to be done when there is a “conservative House and a conservative Senate.” Palin jumped right in and said, “We’ve got to rein in the spending, obviously.” However, she then seemed to forget her next talking point and glanced down at her left hand, as if there were notes she had scribbled down. She went on to talk about “energy projects.” Watch it:
Wall Street Republicans Form ‘Action Tank’ To Push Corporate Agenda
Wall Street Republicans Form ‘Action Tank’ To Push Corporate Agenda
Just two weeks after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of opening the floodgates of corporate donations into electoral politics, a class of Wall Street Republicans have assembled around a new GOP group that aims to capitalize on corporate America’s empowerment. According to The New York Times, the group aims to “develop and market conservative ideas…hoping to capitalize on the fundraising and electioneering possibilities opened up by a recent Supreme Court ruling.” “This administration as well as Citizens United — when you combine the two the prospects for funding these types of efforts are greatly enhanced,” said former senator Norm Coleman, one of the group’s organizers.
The Republican figures behind the American Action Network have a long history and symbiotic relationship with Wall Street. Here’s a breakdown of the key players in the group:
The Wall Street Republicans behind American Action Network
Robert K. Steel
Former Goldman Sachs Exec & Wachovia CEO
Robert Steel spent close to 30 years with Goldman Sachs before joining his Goldman colleague Henry Paulson in the Treasury Department. Steel and Paulson helped ensure that Bush’s 2008 Wall Street bailout would leave Goldman “among the biggest beneficiaries of the $700 billion U.S. plan.”
Kenneth Langone
Home Depot Founder, Investment Banker
Wall Street titan Kenneth Langone was called “The Man Behind Grasso’s Payday” after NYSE Chairman Richard Grasso was awarded $139.5 million amidst controversy over Wall Street excesses in 2004. Langone, chair of the compensation committee, defended the exuberant pay, arguing that Grasso was entitled to the amount. Then-NY AG Eliot Spitzer filed a lawsuit against the NYSE — including Langone — charging that “the board of the NYSE was misled about parts” of Grasso’s compensation. In 2004, a businessman in Florida also sued Langone for $1.8 billion. The suit charged him with “conspiring to interfere and interfering with business relationships,” as well as “extortion, defamation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and violations of the Florida Antitrust Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act.”
Ed Gillespie
Fmr RNC Chairman, Lobbyist
Ed Gillespie’s lobbying firm includes a host of clients whose interests are grounded in Wall Street: Enron, Citibank, Bank of America, Zurich Financial, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the “clean coal” front group ACCCE.
Fred Malek
Thayer Capital Partners Founder
Fred Malek is a super-wealthy Republican operative who got his start with the Nixon administration. The former co-owner of the Texas Rangers with George W. Bush was responsible for a 1972 scheme that was investigated by the Senate Watergate Committee to politicize broad segments of the federal government in favor of reelecting Nixon. In 2004, Malek “was fined $250,000 for what the SEC called a ‘fraudulent scheme.’”
It is clear that the parties involved in forming the American Action Network all have a history of fighting for pro-corporate policies. Malek already summed up what we can expect from the group going into the future: “My strength is loyalty, my downfall is loyalty.”
Virginia GOP Mocks Epic Snow Storm As ‘12 Inches Of Global Warming’
Virginia GOP Mocks Epic Snow Storm As ‘12 Inches Of Global Warming’
Record snowfall is now falling in the Washington D.C.-Baltimore region, with accumulation expected to shatter the 1922 Washington record of 28 inches and the 1993 Baltimore record of 26.8 inches of snow. The storm is leaving destruction in its wake, with tornado watches in Florida and ice storms expected in North Carolina. In Virginia, towns are struggling to decide how to pay for snow removal, as their budgets have been blown through by previous storms.
In response, the Virginia Republican Party has ads that mock Rep. Rick Boucher and Rep. Tom Periello — both Democrats in conservative districts who support climate legislation — because they “think global warming is a serious problem for Virginia…so serious they voted to kill tens of thousands of Virginia jobs just to stop it.” The ad “features images of falling snow, stuck cars, and weathermen,” and urges viewers to call the congressmen “and tell them how much global warming you get this weekend”:
Call Boucher and Perriello and tell them how much global warming you get this weekend. Maybe they’ll come help you shovel.
Watch it:
In reality, catastrophic “snowpocalypse” and “snowmageddon” events are exactly what scientists have been warning would hit Virginians because of global warming, in part because warmer air can hold more water. As National Wildlife Federation climate scientist Amanda Staudt notes, winter storms are getting fiercer even as the season gets warmer:
– Wintertime temperatures have been increasing across the northern United States. Since the 1970s, December-February temperature increases have ranged from 1 to 2 degrees in the Pacific Northwest to about 4 degrees in the Northeast to more than 6 degrees in Alaska.
– Winters are getting shorter, too. Spring arrives 10-14 days earlier than it did just 20 years ago.
– Global warming is bringing a clear trend toward heavier precipitation events. Many areas are seeing bigger and more intense snowstorms, especially in the upper Midwest and Northeast.
– Global warming is shifting storm tracks northward. Areas from the Dakotas eastward to northern Michigan have seen a trend toward more heavy snowfall season.
In other news, this past month of January was the warmest on record for the planet.
Marco Rubio faces criticism over opposition to including immigrants in the Census.
Marco Rubio faces criticism over opposition to including immigrants in the Census.
This week, Republican Florida U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio accused his opponent, Gov. Charlie Crist, of trying to “dilute the voting power of every American citizen” through his support of including immigrants in this year’s Census count. However, the Sarasota Herald Tribune reports that Rubio took a much softer stance as little as a week ago:
When asked whether illegal immigrants should count on things like the number of seats that Florida should have in Congress, Rubio initially said last week that he was not sure and that he wanted to “research it more.”
“I think there’s good arguments on both sides of it,” said Rubio, a former House speaker and Republican from Miami. Rubio, however, also said that the census should have an “accurate count” in order to know how “bad of an immigration problem we have.”
Crist has remarked that Rubio’s “notion that you wouldn’t want to accept federal funding to make a political point is absurd.” Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) stated, “It [not counting undocumented immigrants] would be pretty damaging to Florida. … Pretending they’re not there, not counting them, doesn’t make them go away.” State Rep. Dean Cannon commented that “it’s just important that the count be accurate regardless of their [immigrant] status.” Even Rubio supporter State Rep. Esteban Bovo (R) said, “So much funding is tied to the Census, and to be undercounted could have devastating effects down the line. … I really don’t want our community to get shortchanged.” Rubio later backtracked on his remarks to clarify that he was only referring to undocumented immigrants, not green card-holders like his Cuban immigrant parents once were.
More at the Wonk Room.
Utah state representative claims climate change is a ‘conspiracy’ aimed at population control.
Utah state representative claims climate change is a ‘conspiracy’ aimed at population control.
On Thursday, the Utah House Natural Resources Committee passed a resolution expressing the legislature’s belief that “climate alarmists’ carbon dioxide-related global warming hypothesis is unable to account for the current downturn in global temperatures.” The resolution, which now goes to the full House for a vote, urges the EPA to not regulate pollution blamed for climate change “until a full and independent investigation of the climate data conspiracy and global warming science can be substantiated.” When some members of the committee questioned the “conspiracy” wording as “pretty inflammatory,” Rep. Mike Noel (R) claimed that climate change is “in fact a conspiracy to limit population not only in this country but across the globe”:
But Noel defended the “conspiracy” wording, pointing to an out-of-print textbook, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment , written in the 1970s by biologist Paul Ehrlich, Ehrlich’s wife, Anne, and physicist John Holdren about the potential hazards of unchecked population.
The Kanab Republican, referring to Holdren as the Obama administration’s “energy czar,” read from passages of the 1,000-plus-page tome about population-control alternatives that included abortion and forced sterilization. He did not share the authors’ conclusion: that voluntary population-limiting methods are “a far better choice.”
“Now, if you can’t see a connection [of a conspiracy] to that,” the legislator said, “you’re absolutely blind to what is going on. This is absolutely — in my mind, this is in fact a conspiracy to limit population not only in this country but across the globe.”
Discussing the resolution yesterday, Noel said that “sometimes when we don’t have all the answers, we need to have the courage to do nothing.”
Steele: ‘Trust Me, After Taxes, A Million Dollars Is Not A Lot Of Money’
Steele: ‘Trust Me, After Taxes, A Million Dollars Is Not A Lot Of Money’
RNC Chairman Michael Steele and former Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-TN) held a joint appearance Thursday night at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. When the debate turned to President Obama’s plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire on families making over $250,000, Steele “joke[d]” that that wasn’t very much money:
The two often traded jokes, especially when Steele panned President Barack Obama’s long-stated plan to let income tax rates return to higher levels for families making more than $250,000 a year.
“Trust me, after taxes, a million dollars is not a lot of money,” Steele said.
Ford later asked the audience of mostly college students, “Who in here makes a million dollars a year?”
“How many of you want to make a million dollars a year?” Steele quickly responded when no hands were raised.
Of course, to most Americans, $250,000 — let alone a million — is “a lot of money.” The median household income is about $52,000 and only two percent of Americans make $250,000 or more. Fewer than half-a-percent make more than a million dollars. “After taxes,” someone making a million dollars can still expect to keep about $675,000.
Yet Steele is not alone in his out-of-touch assertion. Hate radio host Rush Limbaugh — who reportedly makes about $50 million a year — also recently argued that “$250,000 is not wealthy.” And like Limbaugh, we can “trust” Steele about high income. In addition to his $223,500-a-year RNC post, Steele charges between $8,000 and $20,000 for personal speaking engagements. Indeed, the University paid Steele and Ford a combined $40,000 for Thursday’s event.
Steele’s claim reflects a larger conservative attempt to falsely claim that tax hikes for the very wealth will hurt the middle class.
Defending ‘Tea Party Profiteers,’ Odom Tells Activists ‘We Should Reward Them With Our Pocketbooks’
Defending ‘Tea Party Profiteers,’ Odom Tells Activists ‘We Should Reward Them With Our Pocketbooks’
In a blog post yesterday, Republican strategist Eric Odom defended his tea party business strategy in response to Think Progress’ reporting on Tea Party Profiteers –- Republican consultants, political operatives, and others trying to take advantage of the tea party movement to make a profit and advance a special-interest agenda. To Odom, it is completely ethical for him and his business partners to “have created a means through which they can pay some bills through their activism”:
And even more absurd is the fact that some tea party activists within the “free market” movement are upset that some entrepreneurs have created a means through which they can pay some bills through their activism. [...] But more importantly, we as “free market” activists should applaud their work in writing these books and we should reward them with our pocket books, not balk at them for doing so.
Odom runs countless tea-party-themed websites around the country, many of them made to appear organic, or locally organized. Through his two for-profit companies, Strategic Activism, LLC and American Liberty Alliance, Odom is able to collect money from unknown sources while setting the agenda and the giving out marching orders for the tea party community forums he controls. As the AP reported, lobbyist Reid McMillian helped write the anti-health reform content for “Healthcare Horserace,” one of Odom’s many websites.
A longtime operative who made a career building what he described as Republican “stealth” “attack sites,” Odom recently proclaimed that the tea party movement should work exclusively to elect Republicans this year, writing, “the Republican Party must be our vessel in 2010.” Indeed, his business partner at Strategic Activism, Allen Fuller, runs a GOP public relations firm called Flat Creek Public Affairs where he helps to direct tea parties into volunteering and fundraising for Republican candidates.
Odom and his fellow profiteers are trying to pull off an elaborate scam. They posture as independents and activists, but they are truly Republican hacks, working largely for big business special interests. Instead of protesting the hegemony of an international corporation — as the original Boston tea party did against the London-based East India Company — they are helping to continue a Bush-era society where corporations like Goldman Sachs have unbridled power.
For instance, former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX), another self-proclaimed tea party leader, rails against the Wall Street bailout and efforts to rebuild the foundations of the economy, even though his own lobbying firm represented AIG, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch during the bailouts. Armey, who is still paid a lobbyist salary of at least $550,00 a year, told the New York Times that although he does not believe in “death panels” or other “exaggerations,” he encourages others to spread falsehoods to advance his agenda. Armey’s willful lying is instructive for understanding the profiteers: in the most condescending way, they are exploiting the tea party movement to line their own pockets.
After Calling The Stimulus ‘Fiscal Child Abuse,’ Sanford Flies To DC To Demand Stimulus Money
After Calling The Stimulus ‘Fiscal Child Abuse,’ Sanford Flies To DC To Demand Stimulus Money
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) waged a high-profile war against the economic stimulus package last spring, claiming that accepting the $700 million for which his state was eligible would lead to “a thing called slavery.” Even as his state’s unemployment rate climbed above the national average, Sanford maintained his partisan and politically motivated refusal to take the funds.
But yesterday, Sanford flew to Washington to demand $300 million in stimulus money for education, the State newspaper reports:
Sanford, who spent much of last year fighting parts of the Obama administration’s stimulus plan, now wants S.C. to have a piece of $4 billion in “Race to the Top” education money. [...]
Sanford met with [Secretary of Education Arne] Duncan to learn more about a charter school program Duncan started in Chicago, said Ben Fox, the governor’s spokesman. Sanford also took the trip to urge Duncan to support more charter school grants, Fox said. [...]
Sanford’s trip — which did not appear on his official calendar — is especially hypocritical because the majority of stimulus money destined for South Carolina was to fund education and save thousands of teachers’ jobs. Yet, in March, Sanford told Fox News host Glenn Beck that taking the money would be akin to “fiscal child abuse.”
Indeed, Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) said of Sanford’s trip: “I am pleased to see that the governor is finally taking an interest in South Carolina’s public schools.” “After going to court last year to prevent stimulus funds,” Clyburn added, “his meeting with Secretary Duncan appears to be the governor’s admission that the stimulus was not only necessary but effective.”
Sanford’s objection to taking stimulus education funding became especially poignant after eight-year-old South Carolinian Ty’Sheoma Bethea famously asked President Obama to fix her crumbling school. In June, the state Supreme Court finally ordered Sanford to take the $700 million and now, Bethea’s school is being rebuilt with $23.5 million of stimulus money.
Sanford’s opposition to taking the federal aid — which mirrored that of other high-profile GOP governors, like Bobby Jindal (R-LA) and Rick Perry (R-TX) — was viewed by many as an effort to lay the groundwork for a run for higher office. But after his affair dashed these hopes, Sanford seems to have gained a new interest doing what is right for his state’s students.
Ollie North On What Happens If Gays Are Allowed To Serve Openly In Military: ‘NAMBLA Members’ Are Next
Ollie North On What Happens If Gays Are Allowed To Serve Openly In Military: ‘NAMBLA Members’ Are Next
Last night, Oliver North, the retired U.S. Marine Corps officer-turned-Fox News contributor, appeared on Hannity’s America to condemn the administration’s decision to overturn “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” North characterized Obama’s support for the repeal as a “stunning assault on the all-volunteer military, the very best in the world” and suggested that allowing gay and lesbian soldiers to serve openly was the tantamount to letting pedophiles into the military:
Stunning assault on the all-volunteer military, the very best in the world. Barack Obama now intents to treat them like lab rats in a radical social experiment, and it can be very, very detrimental. … In other words, this isn’t about rights. This isn’t about fairness. It’s all about national security. And apparently, Mr. Obama has forgotten it. … Now, here’s what’s next. NAMBLA [North American Man/Boy Love Association] members, same-sex marriages. Are chaplains in the U.S. military going to be required to perform those kinds of rituals? Do they get government housing?
Watch it:
The irony of a convicted felon who lied about diverting proceeds from arms sales to a rebel group in Nicaragua supporting a policy that forces gay and lesbian servicemen to lie about their sexual orientation was lost on both Hannity and North. The pair also failed to mention that Joint Chief of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen personally supports the policy’s repeal, which would have forced North to condemn him for treating the troops “like lab rats in a radical social experiment.” (HT: MMFA)
Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.
Tea partiers skip prayer and Pledge of Allegiance at opening of national convention.
Tea partiers skip prayer and Pledge of Allegiance at opening of national convention.
The inaugural National Tea Party Convention began yesterday in Nashville, TN despite teabagger infighting and controversy surrounding the event in recent weeks. Tea Party activists have criticized the “scammy” convention’s cost, organizer Judson Phillips’ intention to make money of the event, and Sarah Palin’s $120,000 speaking fee. Just last week, Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) withdrew from their speaking engagements at the convention. And today, the Washington Post reports that the teabaggers — who often boast of their patriotic bona fides — got off to a slow start:
And outside the convention hall, entrepreneurs sold souvenirs: sterling silver tea bag necklaces ($89.99), bags of “Freedom Coffee” ($9) and T-shirts emblazoned with a bald eagle ($20).
The convention’s first day lacked the orchestrated staging of most modern political events. The convention host delivered a meandering welcome speech without notes, saying he misplaced them. Former congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) offered a fiery defense of Judeo-Christian faith and traditional American values, but there was no prayer or Pledge of Allegiance to open the convention — nor was there an American flag in the convention hall. (Skoda blamed the oversight on the hotel staff.)
Scott Brown Claims That The Stimulus Has Not Created ‘One New Job’
Scott Brown Claims That The Stimulus Has Not Created ‘One New Job’
Newly sworn-in Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) has parroted his party’s line on most issues since he began receiving national attention, even changing his opinion on the health care bill. Yesterday, at his first press conference as a U.S. senator, he took another chance to side with the most orthodox conservatives, falsely claiming that the Recovery Act has not created “one new job“:
Last stimulus bill didn’t create one new job. Some states the money that was released hasn’t even been used yet. We lost another 85,000 jobs again, give or take, last month. Massachusetts has not created one new job. Throughout the country as well. May have retained some but has not created any new jobs.
After the conference, CNN’s David Gergen took issue with Brown’s claim, saying, “I think that there are an awful lot of people out there who would dispute the assertion.” Watch it:
Gergen’s right. Among those people are the nearly 600,000 whose jobs were saved or created in the last quarter of 2009 alone. Economists have consistently praised the Recovery Act for rescuing the economy, projecting that without the “boldest countercyclical fiscal stimulus in American history,” unemployment would have hit 10.8 percent and there would have been another 1.2 million lost jobs. Today, unemployment stands a full percentage point lower at 9.7 percent.
Brown understood this last week, when he asked Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick to increase “the pace of the state’s economic stimulus spending.” This came after reports that the stimulus had added last quarter more than 9,000 jobs to the 23,000 already created or saved in Massachusetts. Despite the evidence and the economists’ consensus, however, Brown has endorsed his fellow Republicans’ “clueless” denial of the stimulus’ effectiveness.
Focus on the Family to air a second ad during Super Bowl pre-game.
Focus on the Family to air a second ad during Super Bowl pre-game.
In recent weeks, CBS has been taking heat over its decision to allow a pro-life ad by Focus on the Family, featuring Heisman winner Tim Tebow, to air during the Super Bowl. Last week, CBS faced further complaints when it rejected an ad by a gay dating site. Today, USA Today reports that Focus on the Family will now be airing a second ad — also featuring Tebow and his mother — to run four times during pre-game airtime. More details on the organizations ads:
Although Focus on the Family won’t reveal its ads’ details, CEO Jim Daly says the original ad was rejected by CBS. In it, Pam Tebow, who was advised by a doctor to have an abortion for medical reasons when pregnant with her son, said, “Both of our lives were at risk.”
“They felt that was too much,” he says. “So we dropped the line. We didn’t fight them.” The word “abortion” is never used.
The ad is “an open discussion on the sanctity of human life — not just the issue of abortion,” Daly says. It was made for less than $100,000 with “a bit of humor in it — in fitting with the Super Bowl theme.”
This week, Dana Goldstein of the Daily Beast reported that CBS executives collaborated with Focus on the Family on making the ad fit for airing, giving the group guidance that other advertisers don’t receive. Yesterday, Planned Parenthood posted a pro-choice response ad featuring former college and professional football player Sean James and Olympic gold medalist Al Joyner. Watch it here.
Flashback: Shelby Pledged To Do ‘Whatever It Takes’ To Deliver ‘Up Or Down’ Votes On Bush Nominees
Flashback: Shelby Pledged To Do ‘Whatever It Takes’ To Deliver ‘Up Or Down’ Votes On Bush Nominees
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) is attracting a great deal of attention for putting a “blanket hold” on all 70 of President Obama’s pending executive nominations in order secure pork for his state. According to congressional experts, Shelby’s hold is both a “rare” and “aggressive” abuse of his power.
Unsurprisingly, Shelby had quite a very different attitude when a Republican sat in the White House. In early ’05 — shortly after winning his fourth term to the Senate — Shelby complained, “Far too many of the President’s nominees were never afforded an up or down vote, because several Democrats chose to block the process for political gain.” He added, “Inaction on these nominees is a disservice to the American people.”
In Feb. 2005, Shelby specifically promised his constituents in Tuscaloosa that he’d do “whatever it takes” to confirm Bush’s judicial nominees, including killing the filibuster:
Shelby also pledged to do “whatever it takes” to confirm Bush’s judicial nominees. A vast majority of Bush’s appointees were confirmed in his first term, but a few controversial ones were filibustered by Democrats in the Senate.
One such nominee is former Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, who Bush nominated more than two years ago to sit on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.
With at least one Supreme Court vacancy expected in Bush’s next term, some Republicans are considering changing the rules of the Senate to force a vote, and likely confirm Bush’s appointees. Shelby said he’d support that option if Democrats continue to filibuster.
Later that year, the Senate struck a compromise to avert changing the filibuster rules. Shelby was quick to register his disapproval:
I do not think that any of us want to operate in an environment where federal judicial nominees must receive 60 votes in order to be confirmed. To that end I firmly support changing the Senate rules to require that a simple majority be necessary to confirm all judicial nominees, thus ending the continuous filibuster of them.
By invoking his “blanket hold” yesterday, Shelby is now forcing Senate Democrats to “secure a 60-member cloture vote to break it, or until Shelby lifts the hold.” Unless, of course, Shelby is still “firmly” in favor of changing the Senate rules so that only 51 votes would be required to break his filibuster.
Sen. Shelby Holding Up All Obama Nominees — Including Top Security Officials — To Secure Pork For Alabama
Sen. Shelby Holding Up All Obama Nominees — Including Top Security Officials — To Secure Pork For Alabama
Yesterday, CongressDaily (sub. req.) reported that Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) had “placed a blanket hold on all executive nominations on the Senate calendar in an effort to win concessions from the Obama administration and Pentagon.” In a move that is “a far more aggressive use of the power than is normal,” Shelby is holding up more than 70 nominees.
Some of the nominees Shelby is blocking include “the top Intelligence officers at the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security as well as the number three civilian at the Pentagon.” Yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) objected on behalf of Shelby when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) attempted to bring some of the national security nominees up for a vote:
We learned why Thursday when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asked again to have votes on the nominees and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell objected, he said, on behalf of Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Al.
The reason? Shelby is concerned his state might lose some (very) lucrative defense contracts.
In other words – pork. Shelby calls them “unaddressed national security concerns.” McConnell called it “an issue with which I’m not terribly familiar.”
“He is not able to be here at the moment to state his position,” said McConnell of Shelby. McConnell implied that that he’d rather go ahead with the votes. “Maybe we can in discussions with him make some progress on these sooner rather than later. but for the moment I’m constrained to object on his behalf,” said McConnell.
In particular, Shelby has laid down the nearly unprecedented blanket hold in order to gain leverage for his home state interests on two federal contracts:
– A $40 billion contract to build air-to-air refueling tankers. From CongressDaily: “Northrop/EADS team would build the planes in Mobile, Ala., but has threatened to pull out of the competition unless the Air Force makes changes to a draft request for proposals.” Federal Times offers more details on the tanker deal, and also confirms its connection to the hold.
– An improvised explosive device testing lab for the FBI. From CongressDaily: “[Shelby] is frustrated that the Obama administration won’t build” the center, which Shelby earmarked $45 million for in 2008. The center is due to be based “at the Army’s Redstone Arsenal.”
Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), the chairman of the Armed Forces Committee, expressed his “frustration” and “dismay” over “the road blocks which have been placed in the way of Senate nominations for key positions at the Department of Defense” on the Senate floor yesterday. “Nobody has informed me of any concern about the qualifications of anyone of these five nominees and yet there’s an objection here on the floor of the Senate,” said Levin. Watch it:
“We’ve got a huge backlog of folks who are unanimously viewed as well qualified — nobody has a specific objection to them — but end up having a hold on them because of some completely unrelated piece of business,” said President Obama on Wednesday. “That’s an example…of the kind of stuff that Americans just don’t understand.”
Tancredo says Obama won because we lack a ‘literacy test before people can vote in this country.’
Tancredo says Obama won because we lack a ‘literacy test before people can vote in this country.’
Yesterday was the start of the National Tea Party Convention, which is “aimed at bringing the Tea Party Movement leaders together from around the nation for the purpose of networking and supporting the movement’s multiple organizations’ principal goals.” One of the featured speakers during the convention’s kickoff was former Republican congressman Tom Tancredo. Tancredo told the audience that the country had elected “a committed socialist ideologue in the White House” because “we do not have a civics, literary test before people can vote in this country“:
The opening-night speaker at first ever National Tea Party Convention ripped into President Obama, Sen. John McCain and “the cult of multiculturalism,” asserting that Obama was elected because “we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country.”
The speaker, former Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., told about 600 delegates in a Nashville, Tenn., ballroom that in the 2008 election, America “put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House … Barack Hussein Obama.”
Given that the convention is being held in Nashville, Tennessee, Tancredo’s remarks are particularly offensive. For years, literacy tests were used across the South to disenfranchise African-American voters, who generally had illiteracy rates 4-5 times as high as whites due to historical discrimination and lack of opportunity. Unfortunately for Tancredo, the 1965 Voting Rights Act makes literacy tests illegal.
Wallace awkwardly tries to defend his ‘hope’ that Palin will sit on his lap during their interview.
Wallace awkwardly tries to defend his ‘hope’ that Palin will sit on his lap during their interview.
Yesterday during an interview with Don Imus on Fox Business, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace was promoting his interview this week with former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. When Imus randomly asked whether she will “be sitting on your lap” during the interview, Wallace replied, “One can only hope.” This morning, Fox and Friends host Steve Doocy asked Wallace about his comment. Co-host Gretchen Carlson was flabbergasted by the exchange between Wallace and Imus, and asked, “Would you ask that of a man?” Wallace was silent for a few seconds before stumbling over a response and changing the subject to whether she would sit on Brad Pitt’s lap during an interview:
WALLACE: What happened was I was on Imus, which was my first mistake…and he said to me at the end — just kidding around — “So when you do the interview, will she be sitting on your lap?” And I said, “One can hope.”
CARLSON: Why would he ask such an inane question?
DOOCY: I think it’s a great question. (CROSSTALK) But you said yes.
CARLSON: Would you ask that of a man?
WALLACE: Would he have asked me if a man?
CARLSON: Yeah, would sit on your lap.
WALLACE: I don’t know. Let me ask you a question. Would you do an interview with Brad Pitt, with you sitting on his lap, Gretchen?
CARLSON: Absolutely not. I find nothing hot about Brad Pitt.
Watch it:
Transcript: More »
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll